I don’t often write here about the situation in the Anglican Communion, of which the Church of England to which I belong is a part. But the long and sorry saga of the last few years seems to be building up to a climax which can only be a split, at least in all but name. Here I give a rather simplified summary of the situation and my own reflections on it.
In September the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (formerly the Episcopal Church of the USA, but they dropped the last part of their name when they pioneered crossing province boundaries) deliberately rejected many of the requirements put to their church by the Primates (leading bishops of provinces) of the Anglican Communion. These requirements were not for them to change their doctrine or reverse their positions, only for them to pause and refrain from further actions which would exacerbate the situation, to allow time for discussion and reconciliation. In particular the House of Bishops made no attempt to hold back on either approval of same-sex marriage ceremonies or legal action against dissenting parishes. Nevertheless the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who oversees the whole Communion, seems determined not to bring The Episcopal Church to account, even though that seems likely to mean that up to half of the Communion, a group led by the African churches, will effectively withdraw, by refusing to attend next year’s Lambeth Conference. Basically Archbishop Rowan has to decide between keeping the Americans in the Communion and keeping the Africans. It looks as if he is deciding for the former, who are smaller in number but richer.
The issue is sometimes seen to be all about gay bishops and same-sex marriage. But in fact these matters of homosexuality are only a small symptom of the real division in the Communion. The Primates of the Global South, those from Africa and southern Asia, met last month on a joint visit to Shanghai and issued a Communiqué, reported by Anglican Mainstream, from which this is an extract:
What is at stake is the very nature of Anglicanism – not just about sexuality but also about the nature of Christ, the truth of the Gospel and the authority of the Bible. We reject the religion of accommodation and cultural conformity that offers neither transforming power nor eternal hope.
A not very Anglican “Amen!” to the last sentence.
A few days ago Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh, one of the rather few conservative leaders in The Episcopal Church, put the issue this way:
The matter finally comes down to an unavoidable choice between cultures. There is the culture of the wider Episcopal Church: theologically innovative, at the edge of mainstream Christianity, secularly attuned, declining, canonically fundamentalist, and ready to sue or depose to obtain its way. By contrast, there is the culture of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh: Scripturally centered, critiquing the secular agenda, among the fastest (and few) growing dioceses of the Episcopal Church (relative to population decline), focused on congregational mission, allowing vast freedoms in the form and manner of ministry. Given that we must choose – and I do believe that national actions have now dictated that we must – which is the predominant culture we desire individually and corporately to embrace: national Church or local diocese?
The Diocese of Pittsburgh has already made its choice, to follow its own diocesan culture. For us in the Church of England, and indeed anywhere in the Anglican Communion, it seems that the same choice will have to be made rather soon. Do we follow the “theologically innovative, … secularly attuned” culture of The Episcopal Church, which is apparently being embraced by our own Archbishop Rowan, or do we follow the alternative culture, “Scripturally centered, critiquing the secular agenda, … focused on congregational mission”, which Archbishop Rowan seems determined to marginalise? I can only do the latter, because that is the path which Jesus Christ took.
And that means that when it comes to the crunch, to a split in the Communion, I will have to side with the Africans rather than the Americans. If that means I have to go against Archbishop Rowan, or my own Bishop of Chelmsford who is a patron of the the pro-gay campaigning group ‘Changing Attitude’, or even personally leave the Church of England, then so be it.
This is not to say that I stand wholeheartedly with the conservative wing of the church. I note with concern that many of the Africans and those who are taking their side seem to be aggressively opposed to homosexuality (but their views need to be understood in an African context), and are also opposed to ordination of women and other positive trends in the church. I would certainly not want to be identified with the Church of England movement called Reform.
Rather, I identify myself to some extent with what I hope is quite a broad central grouping of evangelicals and charismatics in the C of E which does not want to go along with the Americans and break with the Africans. I note that Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester has already effectively declared himself on the side of the Africans by joining their boycott of the Lambeth Conference. I hope that more leaders of the Church of England will stand up and be counted in this way. The real crunch will come next year when we see who actually attends the Conference and shares in the Eucharist there.
In fact because of the unique status of my own local church I can remain a member of it without being a member of the C of E. So my decision is likely to have little effect on me personally. But when Jesus made his choice of path, to stand against the compromised religious authorities of his day, it led to his death. Archbishop Cranmer, the founding father of the Church of England, went to his death at the stake rather than compromise the basic principles of Anglicanism. Would I be prepared to follow their example if necessary? I hope so.
Note that these are my personal views as a “lay” person, not in any way those of my own local church or its leaders.
To keep track of the continuing controversies, I recommend the blog of Ruth Gledhill of The Times, and, if it does not give you information overload, the Anglican Mainstream site.
Peter, for a thoughtful episcopalian view from the States look here.
Tim
Peter,
I write this not to disagree with you (although I would say that I do) but to ask you whether you have read many of the other perspectives on the situation from episcopal church websites, for example. It seems to me that some of the ways you characterise this are the staple of certain American conservative circles, picked up by African, English and other circles.
I have come to the sad conclusion that I hardly believe anyone’s representation of the facts without a vast amount of cross checking, and even then remain dubious. A great many “Global South” circulars seem to get disowned by one or more signatories in the week or so after they are issued.
I also hear at first, second and third hand, a great many stories of dishonesty, corruption, bribery and (heterosexual) promiscuity among African church leaders. They hardy offer a model of holiness or scriptural fidelity in the round. (To say nothing of some very od goings on among at least some of the American conservatives). The question of homosexuality has pulled a more general question of ethical fidelity to scripture out of shape.
I personally, on both conservatibve and liberal sides, see a great deal of talk, threat and ultimatum type of language that seems to me far more unscriptural in its patterns of leadership and treatment of one another than any of the questions about sexuality. When Christians become as obsessed with power as it seems to me many on both sides have done, I think the gospel is profoundly distorted at its very roots.
About what should happen in the future, I remain confused and uncertain. But I do feel the situation is far more complex than your summary of it.
Doug, I accept that my summary is a highly simplified one of a complex situation. I have also tried to avoid relying on any outsider’s representation of the situation, but only on statements made by the bishops etc involved. But of course I don’t see every such statement.
As I thought I made clear, I do not identify entirely with the Africans any more than with the Americans here. And I agree in having very negative feelings towards anyone “obsessed with power”, as certainly some are in The Episcopal Church, whereas I have only seen unsubstantiated allegations that this attitude is common among the African leaders. Meanwhile The Episcopal Church continues to take its own congregations and leaders to secular courts, in blatant contradiction to Scripture as well as to the Dar es Salaam resolutions agreed by its own Presiding Bishop. Why should I read its own propaganda?
But if you can suggest any specific sites or stories which might help me to see a wider picture, I will (within reason) read them.
Some of my comments about power in African situatios are based on personal conversations with missionaries and reflective African clergy (among them one bishop): in particular they have often highlighted the “tribal chief” model as a significant root of the problem. A source of useful news (and genarrluy useless comments) remains Thinking Anglicans: the actual posts are relatively comprehensive in cataloguing material on the main conservative and liberal sites, irrespective of editorial bias. From there one can usually find the most interesting stuff. From a TEC viewpoint: of the conservative blogs, I find TitusOneNine and Stand Firm the most useful, and of the liberal blogs Episcopal Cafe and Tobias Haller the most helpful.
I wish we all spent as much time praying about it as we do arguing about it – preferably more.
Doug, thanks for the links which I will look at when I have time. And “Amen” to your last sentence.
I don’t think we should discount the Africans. To write them off while ignoring the similar power plays of American and British church leaders strikes me as racial prejudice. Do our bishops never act as the western equivalent of a tribal chief? Surely if justice is to be done we should allow the Africans an equal voice with the Americans per head of their real congregations. And I think if we did so the Americans would easily be outvoted. But maybe it is not so much racial prejudice as the way money talks that gives the Americans their real clout.
But even if we do discount the Africans, we should not discount the latest action by Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone, who was born here in Britain. Indeed I personally knew Venables’ father Dudley, a neighbour and friend of my parents, a URC minister who vied with Prof Moule as the best example I ever knew of Christian humility. I have heard Bishop Gregory speak but never met him personally. But I cannot believe that he is so different from his father that he is taking the action he is because he is “obsessed with power”.
Sorry, you may have misunderstood one of my points. I’m not trying to discount the Africans. I’m trying to point out that we seem to see other people’s sins loom more largely than our own, and that in getting fixated on the “American / Western” sin, some African bishops seem to me to be engaging in this universal human activity. I am not passing judgement on either African or American here, merely asking for a little more mutual self-discernment.
Doug, thanks for the clarification. I didn’t mean to suggest you were being racist, but I have noticed apparent racism among Christians, even missionaries, who have worked in Africa without really understanding Africans (not that I do). Whether some in the Anglican Communion office are favouring Americans over Africans for this reason, or whether money is more significant, or whether it is just their own theological leaning, is not clear.
I don’t think homosexuality has anything to do with American culture. I think the debate arises out of a question of honesty over desire. I think that is more healthy than not. Short comment since my comments are not sticking on this site.
Bob, I discovered why you are having problems posting comments. Two of them (one on this post and one on another) were caught by Akismet as spam. Perhaps someone has reported your Sufficiency blog as undesirable.
I didn’t mean to imply that “homosexuality has anything to do with American culture”. I used “the Americans” as shorthand for the majority of the leadership of The Episcopal Church, implicitly together with those in Canada who support them.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the debate arises out of a question of honesty over desire”. Do you mean that the supporters of homosexual activity are being honest about the fact that they have sexual desires for others of the same sex? If so, I admire their honesty, but not their refusal to recognise that this activity goes against God’s standards or to seek to resist and overcome their desires.
Tim, thanks for your comment, which I only just saw because it was mistaken as spam, just like Bob’s.
Dan Martins’ post perspective is certainly an interesting one. But in the end his penultimate paragraph says it all. The hierarchy of TEC is not showing sufficient flexibility and maturity for this relationship to stand a chance. Perhaps the other party is not either. But it takes two to heal a relationship. As long as the official TEC response is like this:
– there is no chance of proper reconciliation, and the only way ahead is likely to be divorce. I’m surprised that Fr. Martins does not see the logic of his own argument and follow ACN and CCP, and work on improving their ecclesiology, their patience and their charity.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Reflecting Culture, not Changing Attitude